Hawking says there are no gods

[JayUtah]

OK, I take it the answer is NO. It seems (to me) a waste of effort to decree traditions and norms that are thousands of years old - as not meeting the standards of thought/evidence of today.

To my mind the waste of effort occurs trying to prove or disprove the existence of gods that no one believes in or worships. That's like trying to argue how to change the oil pump on a car that was never designed or made. The gods that were formulated thousands or hundreds of years ago are the gods that are still believed in. Those are the gods I believe Hawking had in mind when he wrote.

 

[JayUtah]

First, no one is talking about a science summary - whatever that is to you. It's about a subject that is or is not scientific.

No, it's about whether summarizing the knowledge in a particular field and drawing a reasonable conclusion from it qualifies as science. You're questioning specific activities and passing judgment about whether they "are scientific." Your basis for that judgment was whether those activities, or the product of them, were reported in journals. That's not how scientific journals work.

You asked us to tell you what's wrong with your ideas. That's what's wrong. You have a narrow understanding of how science is actually practiced.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because there's no challenge in that. Is the question: Do the gods of the ancient Greeks exist? Or. Does the God (of the average RC believer) exist? How is this even interesting? I'm simply suggesting a definition of God that is NOT thousands of years old, nor is the best of the Bud Light guzzling masses (not that there's anything wrong with that)

IOW, see if you can find a gap to squeeze a god in rather than following the obvious evidence, gods are mythical beings people believe in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is more adjusted to what I am saying but not exact. I am not attacking the arrogance of science. I am attacking the excess of positivism. And science is not "too narrow". Science has its method and this method has its limits as everything in this world. Otherwise it would be divine. Its limits are empirical knowledge and laws. These are its limits and its force. Therefore I don't think that it is correct to say that science is "too narrow". Out of this limits is what is impossible to observe or to generalize by technical or natural reasons. For example: life in a planet of Alpha Centaury or a particular feeling. Therefore, science cannot predict all human behaviour either collective or individual.

The problem of the existence of gods is an extrascientific problem as I have shown:
(a) Because it is absent of scientific literature. There are not scientific articles in scientific papers dealing with this issue.
(b) Because it is absent in the scientific libraries. Ask your librarian.
(c) Because it cannot be solved by the hypotetico-deductive method.
(d) Because the arguments given by my opponents are philosophical, not scientific, although this make then mad.
(e) Because my opponents have not arguments, but only farces and personal attacks. In addition they ascribe me ideas which are not mine.
(f) And never answer my questions. They frighten them as the fire of hell.

...and some arguments more that can be easily confirmed in the previous comments.

If you think that my definition of science is too narrow I would be glad to discuss yours. Here everybody is against my concept of science but nobody seems abble to provide an alternative concept. Probably they have not any.

This is crap. You've simply omitted all the scientific inquiry into human beliefs in gods in order to find your god gap from science.

People are answering your questions and the idea there is any fear there is laughable.

You just don't like the answers because they don't fit your unsupported world view.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe that gods are myths and you still haven't found out after three thousand messages. You have a problem.

My irony meter broke a few pages back.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, no one is talking about a science summary - whatever that is to you. It's about a subject that is or is not scientific. Like the malaria vaccine or the Tasmanian demon extinction.
Second: if in that comment there is a definition of science I am Muhammad. Where do you see it, dear?

I mean:
If you want to know if the malaria vaccine is effective, go to a medical journal.
If you want to know if the Tasmanian demon is extinct go to a biology magazine.
If you want to know if there is any proof that gods don't exist go to a philosophy magazine.

And that's it.

And if you want to understand the scientific process, go to college, or at least read a few textbooks on the subject.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And if you want to understand the scientific process, go to college, or at least read a few textbooks on the subject.

If only some people would ..

Hans

 

[xjx388]

This is an interesting philosophical argument against the concepts of Creation and Providence.

But note that it does not affect other ideas of god such as Kant's practical Reason argument or the concepts of God associated with faith and inner effects. You have a tendency to consider a primitive form of cosmological religion and pretend that by dismantling it you attack all kinds of religiosity. This is not true.

I have no desire to argue against gobbledygook. I just like to consider things as they readily appear to be. And that is this: almost every idea that mankind has created about God has been disproved by scientific thought. Thus, the more esoteric ideas about God -this entity that is outside the universe and undetectable, for example- are very likely not true either. But even leaving open the possibility that those esoteric ideas might be true...so what? Why should we spare even one thought about a god that is not in the universe and leaves no detectable mark on the universe? What a colossal waste of time!

All philosophical arguments for god are mere apologetics -an attempt to salvage eons of misplaced faith and wasted neurological activity. I have no use for such arguments or a god that supposedly created the universe, lives outside it and has no further effect on it. I feel similarly about god ideas that god IS the universe experiencing itself or similar such gobbledygook.

I’m struggling to understand why such god concepts even matter.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xjx388]

So if you say something manifestly false and I ask you to prove it in some way I am riding a straw man. Amazing reasoning.

Maybe it's not the only way to know if a subject is scientific or not. For now you have not explain why my method fails. If you know another one, it would be good if we could discuss it calmly and honestly.

Please, note that I am not discussing if something is true or false. Just if this is a scientific issue.

It’s not that your method fails, it’s that your method doesn’t actually tell us anything useful. Science has you trumped on that score.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Mo]

No, it's about whether summarizing the knowledge in a particular field and drawing a reasonable conclusion from it qualifies as science. You're questioning specific activities and passing judgment about whether they "are scientific." Your basis for that judgment was whether those activities, or the product of them, were reported in journals. That's not how scientific journals work.

You asked us to tell you what's wrong with your ideas. That's what's wrong. You have a narrow understanding of how science is actually practiced.

Summarizing scientific research can be called "science" only if you maintain your "reasonable" conclusions into the field of scientific conclusions. It would be educational science or popular science. If your conclusions go beyond you are making philosophy, pseudoscience or theology. Not science. An example: When Heisenberg says that contemporary science fits with Platonism he is not doing science, but philosophy. Otherwise science would be speculative and this is not the case. Science is not "reasonable" but rigorous and precise. Your "all is science" implies a lack of respect for science. It is not I who ridicule science, it is you and your collegues. At least the positivists are clear that they are doing philosophy and not science.

It is you that have no idea of how scientific journals function. Do you know what is peer review? If the conclusions of your research are not strictly implied in the data your article is rejected. This is the way they function. Therefore a "reasonable" conclusion would be immediately rejected except if you propose it as a mere hypothesis. This is why the articles about the existence of God don't enter in scientific reviews. Because no scientific conclusion can be drawn about this subject.

What happens here is that you are trying to pass off your speculative philosophical stuff as scientific. This is an enormous absurdity only produced by your ignorance on the issue.
Summarizing: Research about vaccines is in medical reviews; research about the Tasmanian devil in biological reviews; debates on the existence of gods are in philosophical reviews. These are facts.

Full stop.

 

[xjx388]

I can see that. You say that yesterday you said something that you did not say in any of your comments yesterday. That's like the scientific subject that doesn't appear in science journals.



Another one that's on a bender.



I'm going to put it on again and see if you get the light :



A scientific subject that doesn't appear in scientific articles is like one that says he has a car that nobody sees and when you ask him where the car is, he gets offended.

Yes, it is a joke.

You are correct. Not one scientist that I’m aware of has directly tackled the subject of God. But they don’t have to because the scientific facts they have discovered have directly refuted most of the ideas that humans have come up with about god. What’s left are god ideas that aren’t even worthy of thought at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[David Mo]

This is crap. You've simply omitted all the scientific inquiry into human beliefs in gods in order to find your god gap from science.

Sciences deal with religious beliefs from the psychological or anthropological point of view. They study what their mental or cultural causes are and what effects they have on individuals or society. No science is dedicated to proving or denying that God exists.

Once again: In what scientific article have you read a proof that God exists or does not exist? You know the answer, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[David Mo]

I have no desire to argue against gobbledygook. I just like to consider things as they readily appear to be. And that is this: almost every idea that mankind has created about God has been disproved by scientific thought. Thus, the more esoteric ideas about God -this entity that is outside the universe and undetectable, for example- are very likely not true either. But even leaving open the possibility that those esoteric ideas might be true...so what? Why should we spare even one thought about a god that is not in the universe and leaves no detectable mark on the universe? What a colossal waste of time!

All philosophical arguments for god are mere apologetics -an attempt to salvage eons of misplaced faith and wasted neurological activity. I have no use for such arguments or a god that supposedly created the universe, lives outside it and has no further effect on it. I feel similarly about god ideas that god IS the universe experiencing itself or similar such gobbledygook.

I’m struggling to understand why such god concepts even matter.

If you think arguing about the existence of God is a waste of time, what are you doing here?
I think it's a funny topic. I have fun refuting the proofs of God's existence. And now I have discovered that I also have fun refuting scientificist dogmatism.

In addition, it is also a good exercise for the spirit, if you allow me the word. It teaches you to think and to avoid the dogmatic and intransigent thinking that, unfortunately, is found among both sides. Have you realised that everybody here is unable to write a comment without an insult and that many comments are only insults? Do you think this is normal?

Oh, by the way, did you find a scientific refutation of Kant's moral argument?

 

[David Mo]

You are correct. Not one scientist that I’m aware of has directly tackled the subject of God. But they don’t have to because the scientific facts they have discovered have directly refuted most of the ideas that humans have come up with about god. What’s left are god ideas that aren’t even worthy of thought at all.

I think it's a philosophically respectable idea. But the pretensions of some current religious philosophers and theologians who try to demonstrate the superiority of their beliefs make me nervous and I am interested in refuting them. When an intelligent person like Ricoeur, whose non-religious philosophy enchants a lot of people, comes up with these pretensions I think you can't pass it up. And I believe that science cannot refute them. Ricoeur is smart enough to take shelter from that.

That's why I think debating the existence of God is neither useless nor boring. It's an opinion.

 

[Garrison]

This is crap. You've simply omitted all the scientific inquiry into human beliefs in gods in order to find your god gap from science.

People are answering your questions and the idea there is any fear there is laughable.

You just don't like the answers because they don't fit your unsupported world view.

It's no different than demanding a scientific paper detailing all the efforts made to prove Santa's workshop isn't at the North Pole, or disproving the existence of flying Reindeer.

It's been page after page of cod philosophy, inventing a definition of 'god' that is unfalsifiable, claiming this constitutes a limit on scientific knowledge and that those who refuse to accept this fictional limit are being dogmatic and are thus no different from religious believers.

It doesn't even possess the merit of being an original strategy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so I think I've finally got handle on this whole "Philsophizing."

1. Reach the point where science stops telling you what you want to hear.
2. Declare this this point where "Science is no longer allowed to have opinions."
3. Make up after the fact excuses why this is that point.
4. Try to bluster your way through arguments about it by being condescending and talking down to people while claiming they are being rude to you.

 

[David Mo]

It's no different than demanding a scientific paper detailing all the efforts made to prove Santa's workshop isn't at the North Pole.

You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.

 

[xjx388]

If you think arguing about the existence of God is a waste of time, what are you doing here?
I think it's a funny topic. I have fun refuting the proofs of God's existence. And now I have discovered that I also have fun refuting scientificist dogmatism.

In addition, it is also a good exercise for the spirit, if you allow me the word. It teaches you to think and to avoid the dogmatic and intransigent thinking that, unfortunately, is found among both sides. Have you realised that everybody here is unable to write a comment without an insult and that many comments are only insults? Do you think this is normal?

Oh, by the way, did you find a scientific refutation of Kant's moral argument?

All of science is a refutation of Kant’s moral argument. So is all of human experience.

If you can’t acknowledge the leaps Kant made in formulating his ideas about morality and God...well, it would be futile for me to point them out. But I will say this: there is no scientific evidence that his ontological idea is true. If he’s wrong about that, the whole thing falls apart.

Sometimes, when reading philosophy, I’m struck by the “caca to the heart,” reasoning employed. I’ll explain. My cousin was in a car accident and had brain damage as a result. This was during the AIDS crisis in the late 80s. His theory on AIDS was such (and I’m sorry it’s a little vulgar): “Two gay guys have butt sex and the penis has a cut. Caca gets into the cut and spreads throughout the body. That makes them sick. Then -caca to the heart; they die.” Now if you accept his premise, his theory makes perfect sense. But his premise is wrong and science has proven that. Science didn’t care about his idea, so you will never find a paper entitled: “Proven: AIDS not caused by caca to the heart.” All science was interested in was what caused AIDS and they figured it out, thus completely invalidating his caca idea, albeit indirectly.

Philosophy is basically “caca to the heart” thinking. People coming up with something that sounds good to them and explains things to their own satisfaction. But don’t mistake it for the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.

You're stuck at "Science is not about things I don't agree with science on" and seem unable or unwilling to go beyond that.

 

[xjx388]

You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.

It doesn’t have to be about every ridiculous idea people come up with. Scientists have been to the North Pole. No Santa. They don’t need to publish a paper entitled, “Proven: No Santa at North Pole.”

But even if they did, someone somewhere would say: “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus -BUT, Santa isn’t a physical entity; Santa is the animating spirit in parents that drives them to buy presents for their kids. Disprove that!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk